1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to surgical devices and methods in general, and more particularly to surgical devices and methods for restoring a damaged, diseased or otherwise painful spinal joint.
2. Description of Related Art
Traumatic, inflammatory, metabolic, synovial, neoplastic and degenerative disorders of the spine can produce debilitating pain that can have severe socioeconomic and psychological effects.
One of the most common surgical interventions today is arthrodesis, or spine fusion, in which two or more adjacent vertebral bodies are fused together in order to alleviate pain associated with the disc(s) located between those vertebral bodies. Approximately 300,000 such procedures are performed annually in the United States alone. Clinical success varies considerably, depending upon technique and indications, and consideration must be given to the concomitant risks and complications.
For example, while spine fusion generally helps to eliminate certain types of pain, it has also been shown to decrease function by limiting the range of motion for patients in flexion, extension, axial rotation and lateral bending. Furthermore, it is believed that spine fusion creates increased stresses on (and, therefore, accelerated degeneration of) adjacent non-fused motion segments. Additionally, pseudoarthrosis, resulting from an incomplete or ineffective fusion, may reduce or even totally eliminate the desired pain relief for the patient. Also, the fusion device(s) used to effect fusion, whether artificial or biological, may migrate out of the fusion site, thereby creating significant new problems for the patient.
Recently, several attempts have been made to recreate the natural biomechanics of the spine through the use of an artificial disc. Artificial discs are intended to restore articulation between vertebral bodies so as to recreate the full range of motion normally allowed by the elastic properties of the natural disc, which directly connects two opposed vertebral bodies. However, the artificial discs developed to date do not adequately address the mechanics of motion of the spinal column.
In addition to the foregoing, posterior elements called the facet joints help to support axial, torsional and shear loads that act on the spinal column. Furthermore, the facet joints are diarthroidal joints that provide both sliding articulation and load transmission features. However, the facet joints can also be a significant source of spinal disorders and, in many cases, debilitating pain. For example, a patient may suffer from arthritic facet joints, severe facet joint tropism or otherwise deformed facet joints, facet joint injuries, etc. There is currently a lack of good interventions for facet joint disorders. Facetectomy, or the removal of the facet joints, may provide some relief, but it is also believed to produce significant decreases in the stiffness of the spinal column (i.e., hypermobility) in all planes of motion: flexion and extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Furthermore, problems with the facet joints can also complicate treatments associated with other portions of the spine. By way of example, contraindications for artificial discs include arthritic facet joints, absent facet joints, severe facet joint tropism or otherwise deformed facet joints.
U.S. Pat. No. Re. 36,758 (Fitz) discloses an artificial facet joint where the inferior facet, the mating superior facet, or both, are covered with a cap. This cap requires no preparation of the bone or articular surfaces; it covers, and therefore preserves, the bony and articular structure.
The capping of the facet has several potential disadvantages, however. If the facet joint is osteoarthritic, a cap will not remove the source of the pain. Additionally, at least in the case of surface replacements for osteoarthritic femoral heads, the capping of articular bone ends has proven to lead to clinical failure by means of mechanical loosening. This clinical failure is hypothesized to be a sequela of disrupting the periosteum and ligamentum teres femoris, both serving a nutrition delivery role to the femoral head, thereby leading to avascular necrosis of the bony support structure for the surface replacement. It is possible that corresponding problems could develop from capping the facet. Another potential disadvantage of facet capping is that in order to accommodate the wide variability in anatomical morphology of the facets, not only between individuals but also between levels within the spinal column, a very wide range of cap sizes and shapes is required.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,132,464 (Martin) discloses a spinal facet joint prosthesis that is supported on the lamina (which is sometimes also referred to as the posterior arch). Extending from this support structure are inferior and/or superior blades that replace the cartilage at the facet joint. Like the design of the aforementioned U.S. Pat. No. Re. 36,758, the prosthesis of U.S. Pat. No. 6,132,464 generally preserves existing bony structures and therefore does not address pathologies which affect the bone of the facets in addition to affecting the associated cartilage. Furthermore, the prosthesis of U.S. Pat. No. 6,132,464 requires a secure mating between the prosthesis and the lamina. However, the lamina is a very complex and highly variable anatomical surface. As a result, in practice, it is very difficult to design a prosthesis that provides reproducible positioning against the lamina so as to correctly locate the cartilage-replacing blades for the facet joints.
Another approach to surgical intervention for spinal facets is disclosed in International Pat. Publication No. WO9848717A1 (Villaret et al.). While this publication teaches the replacement of spinal facets, the replacement is interlocked in a manner so as to immobilize the joint.
Thus it will be seen that previous attempts to provide facet joint replacement have proven inadequate.
In some circumstances, additional structures of a vertebra beside the facets may have been compromised by disease or trauma. For example, the lamina, the spinous process and/or the two transverse processes may have been compromised by disease or trauma. In such a circumstance, it would be useful to have a prosthesis which would allow the replacement of the same.